WiiLoaded.com - Wii Forum and News

Right 360 outputs 1080i That's 540 Lines per phase and there are 60 phases per second
PS3 outputs 1080p thats 1080 lines per phase at 30 phases per second
Wii outputs 480p that's 480 lines per phase at 60 phases per seccond

all at 16:9 aspect



So the wii needs about a 1/3 of the graphical power of the 360 to produce the same looking graphics as It doesn't need to be as detailed. It only needs about 1/5 of the PS3s power.

It's still a little under but things look better, If nintendo made an HD console, they'd obv use higher power components.

I just can't afford the PS3, not to mention that games are going to be expensive too. So getting the Wii seems reasonable and then getting the 360 is a longshot but still a possibility.
And I didn't fully understand what you said there Dark, but it sounded good

well you could always wait for a price drop since all the AAA titles will be out by Q2 2007 so by then there would most probably be one, although its been stated there wont be a price drop by the end of this year, but probably in 2007

ok, I'll try and explain better -

Every second the wii has to pump 20,736,000 pixels per seccond
The 360 has to pump 46,656,000 pixels per second (2.5 times the wii)
The PS3@30Hz has to pump 62,208,000 pixels per second (3 times the wii)
The PS3@60Hz has to pump 124,416,000 pixels per second (6 times the wii)

So the table isn't enough, A good comparison would be to work out how many cycles it takes the main aspects of the console to generate one pixel, In order to show how much surplus power the console has:

The Wii CPU generates 1 pixel every 35.16 Hz
The Wii GPU generates 1 pixel every 11.72 Hz

The Xbox360 CPU generates 1 pixel every 68.59 Hz
The Xbox360 GPU generates 1 pixel every 10.72 Hz

The PS3@30Hz CPU generates 1 pixel every 51.44 Hz
The PS3@30Hz GPU generates 1 pixel every 8.84 Hz

The PS3@60Hz CPU generates 1 pixel every 25.72 Hz
The PS3@60Hz GPU generates 1 pixel every 4.42 Hz

These numbers obviously don't mean much, but it shows that the wii has the most graphical power per pixel. And provided ATI put a good set of features in there, It could reproduce PS3 standard graphics (albeit at a much lower resolution). Oddly the Xbox 360 has the highest processing power per pixel.

Bare in mind this doesn't take into account the overheads from AI, Physics and game logic. It also doesn't take into account bandwidth or memory issues or the performance gain from multiple cores.

But it just shows that the PS3 is gonna be sweating it at the widescreen 1080p60 sony have promised ^_^

Geez. If you could explain this to every Sony fanboy it'd really take them down a peg.

Nice Chart.. Just what i was looking for!!

what im looking for is just not graphical power - its called gameplay...

Graphics enhance a game
they dont make it

Me too, I was just explaining that The other consoles require much more power as they operate at HD resolutions

unfortunately i have no idea what these specs mean (well i have a vague idea) to be honest i really dont know...

^Likewise

i'm just using the abbreviated versions. Well, anyway good research and info about all the power.

it makes the wii look not as great but it really is cause did they show th priceses.... nope.

ok i think i understand now - wait no - you lost me again -

is a high processing power per pixl good or bad?

i think its good pretty sure

Good - it means there are more cycles for other things ^_^

yea the faster it gets done the more time for other things

D4rk, you do realize that more pixels means better graphics(as you said more detail), no matter how fast it's being rendered. If it rendered one frame at 1080p it would be exponentially greater in every aspect than a Wii's render at 480p. That's why the Wii's graphics are not as good, period. It's UNDEBATABLE about the graphical powers of the consoles. The gameplay and prices are where people become wary.

Indeed I do realise, I was giving an explaination as to why the wii's numbers need not be as high as the other consoles. I fully accept that the PS3 will have the highest potential for graphics.

However let me put it like this - Halflife2 at 640x480 is just the same as Halflife2 at 1600x1200
Just lower resolution, therefore needing less processing power. This is the kind of comparison I was getting at. Within the constraints of the processors etc, the wii can, theoretically, use just as detailed textures and models as a PS3 - just at a lower resolution.

ppsppspspss this is how I see it, bare in mind it could be total BS

However let me put it like this - Halflife2 at 640x480 is just the same as Halflife2 at 1600x1200
Just lower resolution, therefore needing less processing power. This is the kind of comparison I was getting at. Within the constraints of the processors etc, the wii can, theoretically,??use just as detailed textures and models as a PS3 - just at a lower resolution.
[/quote]
at lower resoulution, incredibly much lower FPS, maybe more jaggies, Oh and wait, PS3 and wii most probably have different pixel/vertex shader and FSAA (both have different graphics card) So most probably the wii cant produce excactly the same detailed textures or models, but if ever could, the game would run at a much lower FPS and lower res+jaggies.

heh,,,,,,

The Gamecube's GPU is ATI, at least it can do FSAA without cutting out something else ?_?

but seriously when did lower resolution = lower frame rate, Besides these are consoles, they are hard limited at 60fps as that is the refresh rate of the NTSC standard. The PS3 may even be limited at 30fps if they can't control the heat... And the jaggies are inherent of the resolution not the console


touch